User talk:Rodasmith/Archive 4

It would be great if you could take a look at it and compare it with my version, and comment here. It's a way too complicated template, but also too widely used to be experimented with. — Vildricianus 07:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another thought: we may want to start out using Template:tag as a base to reform things. I think overall, it's better to use that one for the things currently done by Template:cattag. — Vildricianus 09:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is this still somewhere in the back of your head? We should really find a decent solution. Once I get back in a couple of weeks I want to be able to solve it. Cheers, — Vildricianus 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I confess I all but forgot about this initiative. Let's pick this up again when you return. Rod (A. Smith) 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pardon this (admittedly ignorant) question, but can either the genetive form or the declension pattern always be determined from the other, or more precisely, from the combination of the other and the lemma?

In any event, I believe the inflection extension I am working on can be extended just a bit to make {{la-noun}} require at least one fewer parameter: certainly the second parameter (the macron-stripped genetive, as determined from the genetive with macrons) and possibly one of either the third (genetive with macrons) or the fifth (declension pattern) parameter, depending on your answer to the above question.

Also, would you prefer to discuss this at Template talk:la-noun? (If so, it's not clear to me where on the page to put design discussion. A new section? if not, should I sign your name to the existing sections?) Rod (A. Smith) 06:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, you can't determine the genitive from the declension pattern. There are too many possible variations, even within a single declension. The first declension for instance has both a Latin and a Greek form, depending on the etymology. The third declension has a huge array of possible genitive forms, often with irregular stems. However, it might be reasonable to say that the declension pattern (1st through 5th) can be determined from knowing the genitive singular in most cases. There will be exceptions. In general first declension ends in -ae, second in -ī, third in -is, fourth in -ūs, fifth in -ēī or eī. Notice the sort of overlap between second and fifth. Except for the oddity there are the excpetions, we might be able to dispense with inserting the declension, but it would require being able to handle odd cases where the declension can't be determined from the ending and isn't specified as an extar parameter if we choose to do it that way.

Have you looked at the various declension pages (as linked on the la-noun template talk page)? You might find them helpful for what you're doing. --EncycloPetey 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I reviewed the declension pattern pages. From your notes above, I was most interested in the second declension pattern. Can I assume that genetive singulars of nouns using the second declension pattern cannot end in -eī or -ēī (that is, the stems cannot end in -e or -ē)? If so, the inflection extension could easily apply the fifth pattern when the genetive parameter ends in -ēī or -eī but the second when the genetive parameter ends in -ī.

So, would you consider beneficial my extending the extension to allow {{la-noun}} to drop two parameters? Rod (A. Smith) 06:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd say yes but with a proviso. There should be a means for specifying the declension when it doesn't follow the expected pattern. There are, for example, some nouns that exist only in the plural and so do not follow the usual pattern. There are also indeclinable nouns, which do not belong to any of the five declensions. There are also weirdos. If the template can have built into it the option for specifying the declension with something like:

{{la-noun|nymphē|nymphēs|f|declen=first}}

Where the last bit is an optional parameter. The template would look for it, but if the "declen" isn't found it will use a default algorithm to determine the declension. Of course, it should also have a feature built in so that if the "declen" parameter is missing and the genitive does not follow an expected pattern, then it fails to display a declension. --EncycloPetey 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Built in algorithms to automatically determine declension? Wow, you have quite a wish-list for this template (heh). Beobach972 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's why it took me three months to work out what the specs were. <g> --EncycloPetey 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

(see also what the three of us have said here). Rod, does your template work for proper nouns as well? (I know that we could make it work for many, as-is (American, Americans) but if it added in a "Category:English nouns" tag that would not be right... thus I suppose we need a separate template. Do we have one already? If not, you should just be able to copy the code from the en-noun one to create it. (&sorry if you reply to my own talk page in the time it takes to post this here!) Beobach972 04:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

{{en-proper noun}} should address your concerns. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could that be added to the list of templates in the edit bar? Thanks. --EncycloPetey 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey - what would I do to categorise plurals (Czechs), your template (is that only for singular?) or a 'manual' category tag? And, what category should they go in (I've been putting them in the same category as the singular, but is there a separate category for English plurals?)? Beobach972 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is not yet a template for entries other than the lemma forms. There should be one, though, in my not-so-humble opinion. :-) There is also a category Category:English plurals, but that category will obviously become so big that it should only be managed through the yet-to-be-created non-lemma templates. Until we have such templates, feel free to enter the plural category manually. Or, if you're ambitious and prepared to explain it, create the plural template. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many items in the Category:English nouns that lack inflection template are plurals, e.g. abbeys. In fact, they shouldn't be in that category, because there is no {{en-noun}} variant for plurals (including pluralia tantum). And, if I am right, the {{en-plural}} template is deprecated. As long as the {{en-noun}} template is not extended (to include plurals) or a new one is created, Wiktionarians could think that a ===Noun=== heading is wrong for plurals, because according to the standards every Noun must be accompanied by a {{en-noun}} template. That's why people could start using alternative headings like ===Noun form=== or ===Plural noun===, which is probably not what we want. It could be argued that the use of the {{plural of|}} template cancels the need for the {{en-noun}} template, but then the problem is that this template can also be used in non-English languages. (Just as templates like the {{linguistics}} template can be used in other languages, hence including a non-English item in such a category.) Could you think of a (final) solution for these matters? — This comment was unsigned.

The solution depends on how this community wants non-lemmata entries to appear. If the desired POS heading is "===Noun===", we should modify {{en-noun}} to accommodate plural entries. If the desired heading is "===Noun form===", we should create {{en-noun-form}}. Rod (A. Smith) 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I was thinking about how the Spanish inflection templates Template:es-noun-mf and Template:es-adj give very verbose output for words that don't change form with gender or number, so I created a test page that has if statements to make the output more condensed for this case.

For example, all of these were generated with the same template:

Rodasmith/Archive 4 mf (plural Rodasmith/Archive 4s)

Rodasmith/Archive 4 mf singular & plural

Rodasmith/Archive 4 mf (masculine plural Rodasmith/Archive 4es, feminine plural Rodasmith/Archive 4as)

Rodasmith/Archive 4 m (masculine plural Rodasmith/Archive 4es, feminine Rodasmith/Archive 4a, feminine plural Rodasmith/Archive 4as)

The template source is a little complex, but it makes things very easy on editors and easier on the eyes when forms are the same. What do you think of this idea?

–Andyluciano 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you've tackled this. I wrote {{es-noun-mf}} etc. when I thought the established pattern (from the old en-.* templates) was the de facto standard. The new paradigm, though is to simplify templates primarily for content editors. A minor recommendation is to use "pl" for the plural parameter name, ala {{en-noun}} et al.

Note that the new en templates emit both inline and table output for css personalization. Since such dual output requirement has become non-negotiable for English templates, it logically extends to non-English templates.

Also, FYI, a regular expression MediaWiki extension built for inflection templates will hopefully be deployed within a week or two. It may simplify your template, allowing its use on plurals and dropping its vowel-vs.-consonant-ending syntax distinction. In the meantime, though, I strongly support deprecating the old es templates for your improved template. Rod (A. Smith) 04:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for directing me to the en template. I see that they also have an sg paremeter, which is helpful when you want to display something other than {{PAGENAME}}. Maybe it could also be a good idea to create paremters such as "m", "mpl", "f", "fpl" (but also checking the longer names to not break pages)

I wasn't sure about the philosophical issue of scripting vs. creating more templates. I take it you think the former is a better way to go. –Andyluciano 05:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to say whether it's better to use polymorphic templates or multiple templates with the current framework. The gender attributes you mention could arguably be better as parameters or as postfixes to the template name. When the inflection extension arrives, though, the ideal will clearly be to use polymorphic templates that analyze the entry ({{PAGENAME}}) to determine the relevant grammar ptoperties whenever possible.

Then, best will be the polymorphic template with the "sg" argument required only on plural and possessive entries with unobvious singulars (and the "pl" argument on singulars and possessives with truly irregular plurals, similarly for a feminine or epicene (sp?) parameter). Of course, I also envision lexical information eventually migrating entirely into Wikidata hosted from WiktionaryZ. :-) In the short term, though, your template seems great, with the minor tweaks mentioned above, because the replacement can be backward compatible with your extended syntax. Rod (A. Smith) 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've been messing around with ja-noun, and replaced out your code; I hope you don't mind too much ;-)

Need to make it handle 6 different script forms an entry can be in (well, 5+, depending on how you count.) It would be good to then define janoun on ja-noun. (and eventually subst: it by bot)

(oh, re subst: what is with users subst:'ing inflection line templates? Why would they even know about that? You'd think anyone who knew would know better?) Robert Ullmann 12:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. There is quite a lot of improvement to make in the Japanese grammar templates here, and your {{ja-noun}} makes some good headway. The "pywikipedia" scripts will help migrate from {{janoun}} to {{ja-noun}}.

Regarding "subst", many editors come here from other WikiMedia projects where tradition had been to subst certain types of templates. Some of those substitutions make sense (e.g. almost any template used in dated discussions, like {{welcome}} and {{unsigned}}) but others are probably more accurately attributed to misguided attempts to optimize MediaWiki's performance.

Considering that {{ja-noun}} takes a parameter to indicate the type of script of the entry, it will likely benefit from the coming inflection extension. The extension will be able to determine the entry's script by matching it against regular expressions. So, we'll be able to simplify the syntax by making that script-indicating argument optional. Let's keep that in mind but otherwise use your template. Well done! Rod (A. Smith) 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I was able to play with ja-noun because it waas only used in three places, and I could change those. ja-verb isn't going to be so easy. I would have used a switch instead of the if-chain, but I spent some time hunting without finding any documentation? Where does the formal documentation for these things live?

Then I could add a default case that replicates the existing janoun code, and #redirect janoun to ja-noun. Likewise, I could do a new version of ja-verb with the existing code in the default case. Downside is that this would probably preclude using the default case for your extension magic. But if I don't do this, I don't see how to replace in ja-verb (without bot runs, which is always possible of course).

Presumably that magic can tell romaji from kana from kanji, but can it distinguish between simplified and traditional? (and note this is different for Japanese and Chinese ...) that requires looking at bit flags in a Han character table ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't fear the bots. :-) Actually, bot approval seems to be less and less of an issue now, at least for uncontroversial changes. Are the traditional/simplified kanji grouped into a few main Unicode blocks or are they scattered all about? Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The basic Han character set of 20,000+ is sorted together by radical/stroke according to a merger of 4 reference dictionaries (these are the 4 you see in the Han character entries here). So you need a bitmap. But even that won't get you there: a traditional character can also be the simplified version of other traditional characters. Even while having its own simplified version. (If you say ouch! about now, I'll forgive you!) There are a lot of places we'll need the script parameter; in Japanese we only want to identify a word as shinjitai kanji when we need to differentiate from kyūjitai. Otherwise "kanji" is just fine. Robert Ullmann 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Your parameter appears to be the best way to differentiate between shinjitai and kyūjitai. Rod (A. Smith) 16:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Separate question: what do we do about WT:AJ that goes into a lot of detail specifying structure mostly at odds with WT:ELE and every other language? ("Hiragana" is not a POS ... sigh) I've cleaned up a few romaji and hiragana entries, they are completely incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know the structure of Japanese a priori, making a romaji entry look like one word with different senses, and not mentioning that it is a noun or a verb or both because they really are different words. WT:AJ is just a mess. Robert Ullmann 20:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Look at the original form of okashi, which is WT:AJ style; someone who doesn't know the structure of Japanese would have to wonder why one word has four different senses, 3 of which seem to be verbs (?), and what are all those squiggles anyway? Robert Ullmann 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll take part of that back; the discussion of parts of speech and conjugations is very good (although, oddly, it starts out by explaining that the western English-like POS don't make sense, and they are going to use the Japanese grammar, and then go on to describe something perfectly consistant with western language grammars, conjugations and particles and all ...) But then it goes off of the deep end saying furigana and hiragana and romaji are POSes. With a completely non-sensical explanation. And this wreaks havoc with the resulting entries. If they'd just stopped with the perfectly good list of POS?) Robert Ullmann 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, WT:AJ could use an overhaul. There does not apear to be a entirely unanimous vision for en.wikt POS headings in general, and the grammar mismatch between Indo European languages and Japanese makes the issue even murkier. I tried to initiate changes to AJ several months ago but my Japanese language skills are not terribly solid and I became side-tracked. Your contributions are certainly welcome. After briefly mentioning your move to change the policy proposal, subsequent discussion can move to Wiktionary talk:About Japanese. Rod (A. Smith) 16:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Brya.

From your posts to Template talk:en-noun, I gather you are highly averse to red links. Perhaps they indicate a state of incompletion to you, perhaps you just dislike the color red, or perhaps there is another reason to dislike red links.

If you dislike signs of incompletion, I suggest it's better to be aware of an incompletion than to hide it. If you just dislike red, I can help you create a style sheet to change the color of those links, and eventually we can incorporate that option into Connel's Javascript preferences. If there is some other reason you dislike red links, let me know. Rod (A. Smith) 15:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do dislike red-links. Partly it is the color, which detracts from readability (for me and therefore probably to others). Partly it is wikipedia experience: wikipedia recognizes the undesirability of redlinks and has guidelines in place against them, except as a temporary measure ("under construction").

It looks to me that the template could generate a new page for the plural. It would be finicky to arrange this, but it would save a lot of time. The user could then just quickly inspect the new page for error, rather than go and create it for himself.

This may not be as bad a problem as the inability to redirect from wikipedia to wiktionary (which prevents moving pages from wikipedia to wiktionary, even when otherwise this would be in order), but still the en-noun template as it is now is discouraging editors from adding content to wiktionary. Also it does diminish readability for at least some users. Brya 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

English Wikipedia has matured to a phase where growth in breadth is now discouraged and emphasis is more on improving the quality of existing articles. With the goal of describing the lexicology of all words of over 7000 languages, English Wiktionary is in a much earlier state of its develoment. In our current stage (which at the present state of growth will last many years), red links are very much welcomed here. If you want to challenge the policy of linking to non-existent inflected forms, feel free to do so at WT:BP. To request a feature to create a draft, approvable inflected entry for each would-be red link inflection, please use WT:GP, because I cannot think of an easy way to do so. Rod (A. Smith) 16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, in those areas in wikipedia where I am working, quality is still being discouraged and adding text of whatever reliability is common practice (in fact, I was actually accused of wild fantasies, or worse, just for suggesting that there could be thousands of languages). If wiktionary is in an earlier state of development, then all the more reason not to discourage editors who want to add information without getting entangled in procedures and redtape (oops redlinks). My technical abilities with templates are limited to adjusting existing templates, so I am not going anywhere near a technical discussion om the topic. What I am left with is the question of whether to combat the en-noun template or to ignore it. Just one more cross to bear? Brya 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

We are NOT Wikipedia. Redlinks remain the primary means of enticing new contributors to make their first edit. For Wiktionary, that is a larger concern than Wikipedia's opinion on cosmetics. --Connel MacKenzie 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Brya, if you wage a battle here against red links, you will oppose the community-endorsed format, not {{en-noun}}. The template links to inflections only because that is the accepted format. Anyway, the proper place for such a format battle is WT:BP. Rod (A. Smith) 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I am neither dogmatic nor militant. I have made my position clear. Brya 08:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you unprotect this? It was protected quite a while ago because someone was messing with it.

The problem is that it puts the entry in Category:Japanese kanji without the radical/stroke sort key that is standard for that category. It makes it hard(er) to fix entries. (Why this template was named "kanji" rather than kanji-readings or some such I will never know.) Robert Ullmann 10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Related issue: if you look in Category:Japanese kanji you will find 40-50 entries after the "kanji" for zero, that are for code points in unicode that aren't used, (at least for Han), but were created by the NanshuBot; the codes display as ? on my computer. The pages are blank versions of the Nanshu "template" except for the Unicode-hex field. I think they can just be deleted? (note the first few entries under a real ? character are pages that need sort keys, they are real) Robert Ullmann 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The template's protection level is now reduced. The ==Japanese==/===Kanji=== section and its {{kanji}} template don't quite match the other headword/POS/inflection sections and templates, so maybe a public discussion is in order. The section and template are, however, tightly bound, so (just) maybe "{{ja-kanji}}" would be better.

The ===Kanji=== section for a single Han character seems to me just fine. It is the Kanji/Hiragana/Furigana(!)/Romaji headers above POS (which is often missing) for words that is the structural problem. When a single character is also a word, it would get (level 3) Kanji, and then (level 3 as well) Noun or Verb, etc; that is fine. It is hardly worth renaming the template, except maybe with a redirect, but that seems like more confusion than it is worth, it isn't visible syntax. I added an rs= parameter so they can be sorted as they are edited for other reasons. Robert Ullmann 11:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The NanshuBot seems to have been in error for the kanji you indicate, so {{rfd}} appears to be in order. Rod (A. Smith) 17:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies; it didn't work as I had expected. My concern was with the apostrophe at the beginning of the language name. The apostrophe should remain in any article about the word, but we should probably remove it when it is used as a category name so that it can be sorted where one would expect. Eclecticology 06:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

July is done. Can you archive or perhaps teach me how? Andrew massyn 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've archived July, but if you want to try it yourself sometime, the steps to archive follow:

1. In one web browser, open the edit page for the new archival month from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/archive.
2. In another web browser, open the month section to archive from WT:RFV, e.g. http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification&action=edit&section=1 .
3. Cut each stricken or red-linked term from the RFV page to the archive page.
4. Save the archive page.
5. If the RFV month section is now empty, remove the month header.
6. Save the RFV month section.
7. Add the next month to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/archive.

Rod (A. Smith) 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've finished a first complete pass at the inflection templates, and done a bit of editing to WT:AJ while noting that on the talk page. It isn't really that much different ... the only big deal is getting rid of the hiragana and romaji headings pretending to be POS, while the POS is missing.

Not getting very much feedback. I've carefully read all the prior comments on the talk page. Pretty good discussion.

Oh, another odd thing: I discovered that the template s/w doesn't treat numbered (positional) parameters the way it does named parameters; you can't use another template inside a positional parameter in at least some cases:

• {{wlink|{{unicode|abc}}}}: Template:wlink
• {{wlink|w={{unicode|abc}}}}: Template:wlink

Know if this is in bugzilla? Thanks, Robert Ullmann 15:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (ps: nice to see "Rodasmith" is both an English noun and an English verb. Have to start using them. Rodasmithing ... ;-)Reply

There are few active contributors to the Japanese entries here, so you may not get terribly many comments. I see you've contacted some of them already, and if it means anything, I'm happy with your changes. The strange substitution differences between positional and named parameters have troubled template developers for awhile, but I don't know whether there is anything in Bugzilla for that behavior. Rod (A. Smith) 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

On http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Template_talk:en-adj the en-adj in the examples abject and ace should be replaced by abject and ace respectively. I didn't know how to do. Maybe you could fix these confusing errors. Thank you.

This nearly intelligible rant is probably a misplaced rewrite of this response to this revert. Rod (A. Smith) 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to discuss this? I am not a hostile person and I am requesting your help (advice). I am not a sock-puppet, and would like to work this out. I’m new and willing to respect all guidelines wile participating with Wiki. I was a bit frustrated as to why my Idioms were discounted without explanation or why I did not recieve any help as to appropriately enter them as suggestions. It was just acknowledged to me how dubious I am. I know I got insulted and responded but I am willing to back down, and let it go and hope the choice of words do not continue to be downgrading (not intended towards you).Kisida 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)PS I did make an offering of peace to… and I hope it goes wellReply

Is the bot supposed to tag words like slanting? I noticed that it was tagged for not having a verb inflection template, so (1) Are we planning to put such templates on all verb form pages, or (2) Is the bot just categorizing blindly based on POS? --EncycloPetey 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The bot had the following task:

• Remove Category:English nouns and its ilk from pages entries that already had a headword/pos/inflection template.
• On entries that have the category but lack a headword/pos/inflection template, do not delete the category (as that would lose potentiably valuable info). Instead, change the category on such entries to a maintenance category for review.

That maintenance category should be removed from entries during this, the cleanup phase. (BTW, the bot is no longer active, as its task is complete.)

That cleanup phase is on hold because we haven't yet determined how best to format entries for non-lemmata, e.g. for "slanting". I think there is a BP conversation with that focus. How would you like non-lemmata to appear? Rod (A. Smith) 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, in your 'my prefs' page, in the 'editing' tab, there is a checkbox for "mark my edits as patrolled", would you be so kind as to check that for me? Thanks! - TheDaveRoss 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. Rod (A. Smith) 19:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

A travesty. But it is used a lot ... usually incorrectly. Sigh.

throw but not catch? (grin). Thank you for your comments on WT:AJ. Robert Ullmann 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"catch" is there now. I was reviewing my code and decided Wiktionary needs the computing senses of most words that appear in code reviews. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's a request on my talk page if that's something you're interested in looking into. DAVilla 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Rod,

Thank you for signaling your confidence in my ability to act as a CheckUser for the English Wiktionary. Your vote means a lot to me. I deeply appreciate it.

You may not be aware, but the Meta: policy dictates that there must be multiple CheckUsers on any given project, or else none will be granted. Each must get 25 votes on their local wiki, as per Meta: policy, to be granted the CheckUser privilege.

I'd like to take a moment to endorse my friends and co-runners. Each of them offers different skills that, as a whole, complement the needs of the English Wiktionary.

1. User:Uncle G has been an English Wikipedia sysop longer than he's been an English Wiktionary sysop. This year (2006) he has refocused his efforts outside of Wiktionary. He was dragged away from Wiktionary while cleaning up the tens of thousands of entries on Wikipedia that linked incorrectly to Wiktionary after the case-sensitivity change in June 2005. He knows Wiktionary very well. And he is very competent at focusing his efforts wherever they are most needed. He operated the original Transwiki: bot, before we had the Special:Import feature we have now.
2. User:Kipmaster is a French Wiktionnaire sysop and bot operator who is very technically capable. He also is in Europe, making his hours of availability complementary to his American counterparts. He is active in WiktionaryZ imports and understands very well which data can be imported here, from there. He normally acts as our primary liaison to fr.wiktionary, whenever compatibility issues arise.
3. User:Jon Harald Søby is a steward. As a meta: steward, he is the primary person we call on to perform CheckUser checks now. His availability is often limited, but his Central European timezone proves to be very, very useful on occasion. He has contributed extensively to Wiktionary over the years.
4. User:Kelly Martin was recently called in to help perform CheckUser checks on the English Wiktionary. She is currently up for election also for the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation. (In the unlikely event she wins that election, she will no longer be available to pursue her CheckUser nomination here.) Since she also has CheckUser privilege on other sister projects, she is accustomed to the 'can's and 'cannot's of CheckUser procedures, in detail.

I hope you can take a moment to consider these fine candidates again. Your support means a great deal to them, as well as to Wiktionary's ability to perform its own CheckUser checks in a timely manner.

Thank you again, for your support.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Conversation moved to Template talk:it-adj. Rod (A. Smith) 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. That was fast! I'll convert manually then delete the redundant ones. SemperBlotto 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Rod-MigrateCatsBot. TIA. --Connel MacKenzie 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply